Posts tagged military

thenewrepublic:

The Next Arab-Israeli War Will Be Fought with Drones
Hezbollah’s drones represent the next evolution of warfare-by-remote-control, when weaponized robotic planes give terrorist groups de facto air forces. 
Illustration by Pilgrym.


Welcome to the future. I’m sure Skynet isn’t far behind.

thenewrepublic:

The Next Arab-Israeli War Will Be Fought with Drones

Hezbollah’s drones represent the next evolution of warfare-by-remote-control, when weaponized robotic planes give terrorist groups de facto air forces. 

Illustration by Pilgrym.

Welcome to the future. I’m sure Skynet isn’t far behind.

Adam Isacson's Latin America Blog: One out of every 68

adam-wola:

Colombia has about 450,000 military and police personnel out of an adult population of about 30.7 million. That means about one out of every 68 Colombians wears a uniform.

Adding together active-duty military, National Guard and reserves, state and local police, and federal law…

This is an interesting comparison. But how does it compare to other countries? As far as I know, Colombia isn’t a particularly militarized country. Or is it?

aljazeera:

The Pacifist War | Is war looming as Japan strengthens its military power and tensions escalate over disputed East China Sea islands?

aljazeera:

The Pacifist War | Is war looming as Japan strengthens its military power and tensions escalate over disputed East China Sea islands?

From foreignaffairsmagazine:

China has drones. Now what?

Welcome to the new arms race? Except, with a much lower (i.e. cheaper) entrance threshold?

From foreignaffairsmagazine:

China has drones. Now what?

Welcome to the new arms race? Except, with a much lower (i.e. cheaper) entrance threshold?

From shortformblog:

ilovecharts:

The whole North Korean army in one place

When it’s all laid out like that in one graphic, it’s pretty huge.

Yep. Huge and (mostly) useless, in a conventional war.

From shortformblog:

ilovecharts:

The whole North Korean army in one place

When it’s all laid out like that in one graphic, it’s pretty huge.

Yep. Huge and (mostly) useless, in a conventional war.

"Women at war, worldwide" | Christian Science Monitor
This week’s Christian Science Monitor has an excellent in-depth look at the role of women in militaries around the world. The picture above is of an Israeli soldier. Israel is one of the few countries that not only gives women combat roles—but also drafts them into military service.

"Women at war, worldwide" | Christian Science Monitor

This week’s Christian Science Monitor has an excellent in-depth look at the role of women in militaries around the world. The picture above is of an Israeli soldier. Israel is one of the few countries that not only gives women combat roles—but also drafts them into military service.

Generalship in combat is extraordinarily difficult, and many seasoned officers fail at it. During World War II, senior American commanders typically were given a few months to succeed, or they’d be replaced. Sixteen out of the 155 officers who commanded Army divisions in combat were relieved for cause, along with at least five corps commanders. Since 9/11, the armed forces have played a central role in our national affairs, waging two long wars—each considerably longer than America’s involvement in World War II. Yet a major change in how our military operates has gone almost unnoticed. Relief of generals has become so rare that, as Lieutenant Colonel Paul Yingling noted during the Iraq War, a private who loses his rifle is now punished more than a general who loses his part of a war.

From bestselling author Thomas E. Ricks’ article “General Failure,” in The Atlantic.

The piece is an extended excerpt from his new book The Generals: American Military Command from World War II to Today, and will make you rethink pretty much everything you know about the military and U.S. foreign policy in the 21st century.

(via thepenguinpress)

From politicalprof:

One of Mitt Romney’s claims in the now-infamous tape is that we can’t afford to cut military spending any further without endangering our security. So, a little perspective. Do note that almost everyone else on this graph is either an explicit US ally or no particular threat to US interests. When you add them to the US total, it’s pretty overwhelming.

What do you call a state that explicitly seeks to maintain military superiority over the globe while maintaining a military footprint on every continent? Hegemony is one word, imperialism is another.

From politicalprof:

One of Mitt Romney’s claims in the now-infamous tape is that we can’t afford to cut military spending any further without endangering our security. So, a little perspective. Do note that almost everyone else on this graph is either an explicit US ally or no particular threat to US interests. When you add them to the US total, it’s pretty overwhelming.

What do you call a state that explicitly seeks to maintain military superiority over the globe while maintaining a military footprint on every continent? Hegemony is one word, imperialism is another.

Thanks, dieyounglivefast!

pol102:From adam-wola:


U.S. defense expenditure, in billions of inflation-adjusted dollars since 1980. It’s much higher now than during Reagan’s cold-war buildup.
(From Mother Jones, using Congressional Budget Office data. More charts there.)

An interesting, and powerful chart. But how would this look if we used spending as a percentage of GDP (which has also increased since 1980)? The underlying fact is that we still spend about the same as we did when we faced another rival superpower. But by what proportion?

I am happy to answer some of your questions (and maybe a few you didn’t ask). The post-9/11 average for base defense spending is about 4 percent of GDP, roughly the post-WWII average. Fifty years ago, defense spending made up around half (48 percent) of total expenditures, while entitlement spending accounted for about 25 percent. Next year entitlements will be 60 percent of the total budget and defense will be less than 20.

This is a great example of how better numbers are often, well, better. The chart above shows defense spending as increasing about 60% from 9/11 to 2010 (from about $400 to $700). If dieyounglivefast is right (and I believe he is), then defense spending has actually decreased about 40% (from 48% of spending to about 20% of spending). What this also means is that military spending has increased, in party because total government spending has increased. The previous graph did not convey this.

Thanks, dieyounglivefast!

pol102:From adam-wola:

U.S. defense expenditure, in billions of inflation-adjusted dollars since 1980. It’s much higher now than during Reagan’s cold-war buildup.

(From Mother Jones, using Congressional Budget Office data. More charts there.)

An interesting, and powerful chart. But how would this look if we used spending as a percentage of GDP (which has also increased since 1980)? The underlying fact is that we still spend about the same as we did when we faced another rival superpower. But by what proportion?

I am happy to answer some of your questions (and maybe a few you didn’t ask). The post-9/11 average for base defense spending is about 4 percent of GDP, roughly the post-WWII average. Fifty years ago, defense spending made up around half (48 percent) of total expenditures, while entitlement spending accounted for about 25 percent. Next year entitlements will be 60 percent of the total budget and defense will be less than 20.

This is a great example of how better numbers are often, well, better. The chart above shows defense spending as increasing about 60% from 9/11 to 2010 (from about $400 to $700). If dieyounglivefast is right (and I believe he is), then defense spending has actually decreased about 40% (from 48% of spending to about 20% of spending). What this also means is that military spending has increased, in party because total government spending has increased. The previous graph did not convey this.

From theatlantic:

North Korea Thanks Its Schoolchildren For Building Such Nice Rocket Tanks

North Korea’s official propaganda outlet, the Korean Central News Agency, recently declared the state’s appreciation for all those young school kids who “helped” manufacture rocket-shooting tanks for the People’s Army. The announcement, which coincided with a military parade in the country’s second-largest city to show off the vehicles, also thanked the “Democratic Women’s Union”:
Multiple-launch rocket systems “Sonyon-ho” and “Nyomaeng-ho” manufactured with the assistance of school youth and children and members of the Democratic Women’s Union of Korea (DWUK) across the country were presented to units of the Korean People’s Army (KPA) with due ceremony at Hamhung Square in South Hamgyong Province on Thursday to mark the 80th anniversary of the KPA.
Those rockets are associated with their will to remain true to the Party’s Songun revolutionary leadership generation after generation and their patriotic desire to make contributions to bolstering the nation’s defence capability.

Multiple-launch rocket systems (MLRS, in military parlance) are serious pieces of equipment, meant to fire guided or unguided explosives over dozens or miles. That they were apparently built in part by school-aged kids is a reminder that North Korean society is so militarized — and so exploited — that even children are skilled and practiced at constructing sophisticated mechanical and electronic weaponry. That the state would actually boast its use of child labor for building tanks is a reminder of the extent to which military nationalism has twisted North Korean society. 
Read more. [Image: KNCA/Reuters]

From theatlantic:

North Korea Thanks Its Schoolchildren For Building Such Nice Rocket Tanks

North Korea’s official propaganda outlet, the Korean Central News Agency, recently declared the state’s appreciation for all those young school kids who “helped” manufacture rocket-shooting tanks for the People’s Army. The announcement, which coincided with a military parade in the country’s second-largest city to show off the vehicles, also thanked the “Democratic Women’s Union”:

Multiple-launch rocket systems “Sonyon-ho” and “Nyomaeng-ho” manufactured with the assistance of school youth and children and members of the Democratic Women’s Union of Korea (DWUK) across the country were presented to units of the Korean People’s Army (KPA) with due ceremony at Hamhung Square in South Hamgyong Province on Thursday to mark the 80th anniversary of the KPA.

Those rockets are associated with their will to remain true to the Party’s Songun revolutionary leadership generation after generation and their patriotic desire to make contributions to bolstering the nation’s defence capability.

Multiple-launch rocket systems (MLRS, in military parlance) are serious pieces of equipment, meant to fire guided or unguided explosives over dozens or miles. That they were apparently built in part by school-aged kids is a reminder that North Korean society is so militarized — and so exploited — that even children are skilled and practiced at constructing sophisticated mechanical and electronic weaponry. That the state would actually boast its use of child labor for building tanks is a reminder of the extent to which military nationalism has twisted North Korean society. 

Read more. [Image: KNCA/Reuters]